The US army originally wasn't supposed to exist, and then was only supposed to be used defensively following a declaration of war.

That needs a link.

I recommend The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 if any of you wish to read about the origin of Al-Qaeda and other Al-* groups.

I recommend The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 if any of you wish to read about the origin of Al-Qaeda and other Al-* groups.

Many of them have roots in the Mujhaadeen in Afghanistan, which was organized, funded and trained by the CIA. The interesting thing is that the warning signs were there for a while, but most people didn't really see it until 9/11.

I recommend The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 if any of you wish to read about the origin of Al-Qaeda and other Al-* groups.

Many of them have roots in the Mujhaadeen in Afghanistan, which was organized, funded and trained by the CIA. The interesting thing is that the warning signs were there for a while, but most people didn't really see it until 9/11.

And these warning signs are still there, and continue to be there.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/team-obama-has-spent-500m-to-train-four-or-five-syrian-rebels/

The US government continues to pick and choose a group of 'moderates', 'rebels', or 'anti-whatever' to be their puppets in opposing local forces, and yet these same people would become the next terrorist group. Which one of these 4 trained Syrians will become the next terrorist?

It's like a lifecycle of terrorism. Western governments continue to inject money and weapons into 'troubling' countries, and these troubling countries produce more terrorists, which then encourages the government to put more money into it.

If you believe in the illuminati and all that crap, maybe it's all been planned out so we react in fear and submit to the New World Order :D.

If Marvel has taught me right, with $500 million, I am expecting these 4-5 people to be radioactively-infused mutants with super powers.

But my point is they still didn't go out and indiscriminately target civilians and there was no reason for the average citizen in the UK to be scared of being blown up.

The official figures for the IRA attacks include ~650 civilian deaths. So I beg to differ, especially for anyone who happened to live in Northern Ireland at the time.

I wouldn't call somebody who lived in Northern Ireland during the troubles "an average citizen". The IRA did not deliberatly target civilians in the same way that the USA doesn't. That does not mean that there is no such thing as collateral damage.

I wouldn't call somebody who lived in Northern Ireland during the troubles "an average citizen".

Again, there are 1.7 million civilians who would disagree with you on this point (that's roughly 3% of the total UK population).

The US army originally wasn't supposed to exist, and then was only supposed to be used defensively following a declaration of war.

That needs a link.

That's why the founders gave the right to bear arms - as standing armies in peacetime were bad, so millitia were required in case an army ever needed to be raised (and so that a tyrant with an army could be fought).

After the revolution, the army that won it was ordered to disband, because, to quote congress: "standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican government, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."
But the army defied congress and stuck around... So congress ordered it to exist but follow only orders given by congress. Militias had also been getting trounced by native Americans, so support for a defensive standing army had grown, and congress agreed to support it until peace with the native Americans was achieved.

The constitution gives congress the ability to declare war, but not make war. You can only produce a declaration of war when a state of war exists - e.g. Mexico attacks you, creating a state of war, congress declares that war exists, now you can invade them to end the war.

It was assumed that the president could only fight wars that had been recognised by congress. When Nixon defied congress in Vietnam, they passed legislation that cemented this interpretation (with small loopholes to allow rapid response, which are abused to allow wars of aggression), yet presidents still defy them to this day.

Following WW2, they also signed the UN charter, which explicitly forbids the offensive use of force against other soverign states, and is supposed to make all armies defensive.

Their reaction was to stomp down extremely hard on the groups responsible but also moving where those groups ultimately wanted towards where those groups wanted the society to move: towards an extremely conservative and narrow form of Islam which we now know to be the problem (we are worried about Salafism but the Saudi Wahhabism is an even stricter form of that).
And unfortunately they have tons of money to export that. Granted, most of that is our money we paid for oil so in a way, it's our fault as well but this is nonetheless one important piece of the puzzle. Unless the Saudi interpretational sovereignty on Islam can be broken I don't see much hope for things getting better down the road.

That is not an accurate history lesson.
The United States of America created fundamentalist propaganda inside Saudi Arabia in order to fight against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Because that makes sense, right?

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was trying to gain allies and increase the influence of communism. After nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, Iran became much more hostile towards England, and Churchill convinced America that they were turning towards communism and aligning with the Soviet Union. England actively pressured America to use its new “CIA” thing to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953. The Soviet Union’s spread was crawling towards the Middle East and several other forced government overthrows (Guatemala, etc.) followed.

In 1952, a Saudi-American oil company had already begun printing religious propaganda in Riyadh, and in the same year America toppled Iran Eisenhower dined with Said Ramadan, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, tied to assassins, etc. The Muslim Brotherhood would in the next year fail to assassinate Nasser, who would become president of Egypt, which would be lost to the Soviet Union until his death in 1970, after which Anwar Sadat implemented sharia law and eventually broke ties with the USSR.

This was a further clue to America that enhanced radicalism could be used to fight communism. They kept using the Muslim Brotherhood for a while, kept pushing radicalism in Saudi Arabia, until finally it became public knowledge that America was funding terrorists.


This is getting too long and I am bored to death whenever the subject of the Middle East appears (yet I know too much about it?).
The Muslim Brotherhood was back-stabbed by America, America used Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Assam to recruit during the Afghan War. Hamas is founded from the more radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, and keeping this short, everyone turns on America.


So it’s not our fault “as well”, it is just our fault, “period”.
Except none of it would have had to have happened if not for the Soviet Union trying to spread communism. Every government overthrow was in direct response of that, and so was the push for radicalism in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.
So it is entirely the fault of the Soviet Union.

And they all lived happily ever after. The End.


L. Spiro

...stuff...

When one asks for a link, you should just supply the link. Because though you may be correct, no one will know unless you substantiate your claim. Until actual evidence/facts are presented, it's just speculative interpretation.

With that said, LINK :)

I wouldn't call somebody who lived in Northern Ireland during the troubles "an average citizen".

Again, there are 1.7 million civilians who would disagree with you on this point (that's roughly 3% of the total UK population).

Why would they disagree with me?

Just because it is 3% of the population doesn't mean that they not were living in exceptional circumstances.
People in Northern Ireland during the troubles were living in a country that was at war and was patrolled by armed police. Communities were split on religious boundaries and there was regular violence and riots.

Meanwhile the rest of us in the UK got up went to work, took our kids to the park went to the pub, watched the footie and were blissfully unaware the people within our own country were living in such terrible conditions.